sign in sign up
<<
Home , Force majeure, Liability insurance

INSIGHTS March 2018 Transportation on Liability and Brokers Liability

The good news is that because the semi has advanced autopilot there is a 99.9% chance that it is not going to hit us. However, unless we acknowledge and grapple with the changes that are taking place, the transportation insurance industry will miss the opportunity to respond to the evolving needs of both existing and new clients that the semi represents.

Looking at the insurance industry as a whole, the financial fundamentals remain weak, with an over-supply of that is being poorly deployed and not generating adequate returns to address the changing risk patterns. Rather than responding to changes in risk by addressing the underlying rating structure, insurers have been moving away from challenging exposures. Meanwhile, emerging technology and the shifting risk profiles that This paper addresses current insurance market challenges autonomous vehicles bring create related to existing and emerging risks in the transportation additional underwriting uncertainty with the backdrop of the reptile industry, including contractual liability, brokers’ liability and the plaintiff philosophy. impact of emerging technology such as artificial intelligence, blockchain and smart . In addition to weak financials, the insurance industry’s product To say that the insurance industry, and in particular the transportation insurance industry, delivery process is highly inefficient, is at a crossroads would be an understatement. The truth of the matter is that the documentation issuance is antiquated transportation insurance industry is at the edge of a cliff and an autonomous electric and ineffective, and our value semi-trailer truck, loaded with 80,000 lbs. of , is driving straight at us, accelerating proposition is not well understood by to 60 mph in less than 20 seconds. our clients. The barriers to entry into

1 INSIGHTS March 2018 our industry have been created through CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY outdated legislation, originally intended to protect the consumer, but currently Liability for the carriage of cargo is governed by the . The bill of lading ensures only serving to make it more challenging there is clarity as to liability for loss or damage to cargo, and generally allows the carrier to for others in the financial services limit their liability for certain types of perils and to certain maximum dollar amounts. The industry or in the technology space to concept of limitation of liability of the carrier is one of the foundations of traditional cargo disrupt the way insurance business is and stems back to when the movement of cargo was considered to be an “adventure” currently done. Already penetrating the as opposed to an expectation. Over the years, aspects of carriers’ limitation of liability, personal lines space, insurance direct including the concept of , have been challenged. Shippers are no longer writers and the banks have found a aligned with seeing the carrier’s transportation of their cargo as an “adventure” and, significant opportunity to improve upon as such, are not as willing to accept and, in many cases, even bother to understand the traditional delivery model and limitations of liability. capture a growing share of the market, and there is very little to suggest that This is being addressed through a dramatic increase in shipper designed contracts this will not migrate into the governing the movement of cargo. Although shipper contracts started out as something commercial space as well. that were primarily coming from the large box store retailers, it is now fairly common even among smaller shippers. Looking specifically at the transportation space, three important areas of focus that There are a variety of challenges with these custom shipper/carrier or shipper/broker will impact transportation clients over the contracts. Outside of just the basic construction of these contracts, which are often based next five years are: on supply contracts rather than shipping agreements, from an insurance perspective there are a number of issues of which carriers and brokers need to be aware – and that 1. Contractual liability would be beneficial for the lawyers assisting shippers with the construction of these How shippers’ attitudes towards agreements to consider. carriers’ liability for the transportation of cargo is changing. First, open-ended liability provisions are difficult to insure. While underwriters are becoming more accustomed to seeing challenging shipper/carrier or shipper/broker 2. Brokers’ liability contracts, the most difficult issue to address in an open ended contract is the financial The impact that the growth of impact of the contract on the carrier or broker. It should be remembered that a cargo asset-light and non-asset logistics liability policy has its foundation in standard limitation of liability, without an operations is having on automobile understanding of the potential financial impact of the contract, pricing insurance liability cases, along with how the coverage for an open-ended contract is almost impossible. insurance industry is responding to this. With this in mind, carriers and brokers need to focus on the following clauses when considering whether a contract will be accepted by their cargo liability underwriters: 3. Changing technology The introduction of new a. Cargo Loss or Damage technologies to both the The expectation that the carrier be liable for “all risks” of loss or damage is actually insurance and the transportation fairly manageable and even establishing that the carrier is liable for the full value of the industry will have a significant cargo (be it wholesale, retail, replacement or however they want it structured) is also impact on the fundamentals of manageable. However, the expectation that the carrier has to be liable for damage the insurance industry. to cargo without the value of the cargo being declared in advance of the shipment is unreasonable. The ideal of course is to have the shipper declare values on the bill of lading, subject to an agreed maximum value, as this will allow the carrier to establish an insurance solution for the transfer of risk that is priced directly against the value of the goods. If the shipper, at a minimum, is able to provide an average value and a maximum value it will allow the carrier to present a risk profile to underwriters so that a pricing model can be developed.

2 INSIGHTS March 2018

b. Liability for Consequential Loss clearly excluded from a standard are being rapidly eroded, and the While the concept of consequential bill of lading. Underwriters will plaintiff’s lawyers are looking to draw loss, or business interruption, is well still resist providing coverage for in as many deep pockets as possible. understood by cargo underwriters, liquidated and penalties This generally will include the broker having a shipper hold a carrier liable related to performance but there is a and the shipper. for an undefined and/or unlimited willingness to give to consequential loss exposure is coverage if the exposure is quantified For the shipper to insulate unrealistic from an insurance and limited. However, as with themselves from the potential perspective. The classic example of consequential loss, an undefined liability exposure they have to what is “unreasonable” consequential loss or unlimited penalty provision, or a otherwise a third party carrier related liability comes from the 1980’s Just-in- penalty provision that is not aligned accident, these indemnity provisions time manufacturing revolution, where to the value of the goods themselves, place a clear expectation on the carriers supplying the automotive is not easily insured. broker to respond in defense of the industry were allegedly to be held shipper in the event the shipper is liable for $1 million per minute of e. Indemnity Provisions drawn into an action arising out of the plant shutdown caused by a late There have been plenty of articles broker’s selection of the underlying delivery, which is a contractual liability on the legality and applicability of carrier. This is actually not an that few carriers at the time would indemnity provisions in transportation unreasonable expectation, although have actually been able to insure. agreements, in particular we at some point it also needs to be Today, an undefined or unreasonable reference an article written several recognized that there is the potential expectation around liability for years ago by Rui Fernandes to help that the action being brought is also consequential loss, without the define what is and is not reasonable/ going to erode the limits purchased establishment of a limitation of legal under an indemnity provision. by the broker. As with the other liability, combined with the removal of While past indemnity provisions may clauses, having a completely open the provision, is almost have been deemed unreasonable, ended indemnity provision is difficult impossible to quantify and, as such, the need for indemnity provisions in to insure. If the shipper wants better very challenging to insure. the transportation space may actually protection against being drawn into be increasing, particularly as more an action being brought against c. Force Majeure provisions brokers base their network around the carrier, they should either set The removal of the Force Majeure smaller fleets of Contract Carriers a higher than standard minimum provision which would allow rather than working with larger expectation of carrier automobile avoidance of liability under contract in national carriers. As the automobile (which will reduce extreme situations creates a challenge liability insurance market tightens, the number and cost effectiveness for underwriters, who cannot accept both in the working and buffer layers, of the carriers available to a broker) liability for every type of loss. The smaller carriers may not be able to or contract directly with a carrier Force Majeure provision should cost effectively arrange the higher who has higher automobile liability be maintained to allow at least an insurance limits they might have done limits. Also, regardless of underlying exception for loss/damage/liability in the past, so to save cost, many will limits, when a retailer branded trailer that is well outside of the carrier’s try to carry minimum insurance levels. is involved in an accident, there is control – examples would include Recognizing that securing carriers automatically an expectation of a War and Strikes risks that would also with higher automobile liability large settlement, even if the retailer represent coverage limitations for the limits is becoming problematic, had no involvement in the carrier average shipper. brokers have also been reducing their selection process. To expect the minimum insurance expectations of broker or carrier to have the types of liability limits that the large retailer d. the underlying carrier down from $2 carries is perhaps unrealistic and, if The inclusion of liquidated damages million to $1 million. When this is required, would carry an insurance or penalties around the performance combined with some of the nuclear cost that could potentially make the of the work was traditionally decisions being made by the US carrier or broker uncompetitive for difficult to insure as these were around automobile accidents, the low limits of the actual carrier the services contemplated.

3 INSIGHTS March 2018

Other contractual requirements that the broker liable as if they are a providing blanket excess are common but are not as much of an carrier. Although the broker may automobile liability insurance over insurance issue include: point out that they will endeavor an unknown group of carriers. to ensure that the underlying If the broker works with a very •• Freight off-set provisions and claims carrier meets the expectations of small number of carriers this might payment terms that are not aligned the shipper and that an alternative work – but where the broker has with industry standards contract form may be more suitable, thousands of carriers this is likely Insurance companies are not going often the shippers will be unwilling not a feasible insurance solution. to settle claims until they have been to change their position. In these provided adequate opportunity to situations what might otherwise •• Request for of Automobile investigate the loss. An expedited become a contingent liability on the Liability insurance to a broker claim payment term or a freight off- broker becomes a primary liability It stands to reason that if you don’t set term in a carrier or broker contract – and they will need to respond have automobile insurance then it is is not going to expedite how an directly to the shipper and then very difficult to provide evidence of underwriter assesses a loss. This can subrogate back against the carrier. automobile insurance. For non-asset be frustrating for the carrier if they From an insurance perspective, the brokers, when the contract calls for are required to settle an alleged claim liabilities that the broker are taking evidence of automobile insurance, from the shipper, while their insurer on when contracting as a carrier are this can be a challenge to respond is not willing to expedite or even manageable, so long as the above to, particularly if the customer takes confirm payment to them within the noted limitations are addressed and a narrow view and does not accept same timeframe. For liability claims the broker has a tight back-to-back a non-owned auto endorsement the period between the contracted agreement with their underlying as an alternative. There was a time payment terms and when an insurer carriers. However, problems will when load brokers would purchase a may agree to settle a claim to the occur when the broker agreements cheap commercial truck that would carrier can be months apart, and with the carrier are not aligned with sit unused in the parking lot just so on a larger claim this can have an the shipper’s expectations – e.g. if the they had a vehicle to insure. The impact on the carrier or broker. There broker agrees to having $10 million cost of arranging insurance on an is also the risk that a claim settled in automobile liability coverage but unused vehicle to meet a certificate by the carrier or broker may not fall only has evidence of $1 million of of insurance requirement was actually within the coverage of the policy coverage from their carrier network, more cost-effective than investing the and may ultimately be declined by that gap in automobile liability time necessary to correct the shipper underwriters, leaving the carrier or insurance is problematic as the actual contract to properly recognize the broker to absorb the loss. carrier moving the cargo does not broker’s role in the transaction. have the contractually requested insurance outlined by the shipper. The physical damage portion Finally, as it relates to Contractual The broker would be in breach of of an expedited claim payment Liability, the traditional document contract and, while a Brokers’ Liability requirement may potentially be requested by shippers as evidence of the coverage may respond to claims addressed through a shippers’ insurance coverage that they have either made by third parties against the interest or cargo insurance solution, specifically requested or expect to be broker for the negligent actions of as this first party can respond to available to respond to the contractual the carrier, the broker will not have claims far more quickly than a cargo obligations agreed to by the carrier or met their contractual obligations to liability policy would. broker, is often of limited value. the shipper, which may open them up to a concern. In •• Broker being contracted as the carrier First, the parties issuing the certificate these situations, the broker may ask While many shippers may understand of insurance often have not reviewed the if we can help them arrange excess that there are differences between contract or confirmed that the coverage automobile liability on behalf of their a broker and a carrier, it is not actually meets the expectations of the carriers – although the insurance uncommon for the shipper to request shipper under the contract agreement. market is not generally open to that a broker sign a contract holding

4 INSIGHTS March 2018

The certificate evidences that the requested policies have been arranged and that the BROKERS’ LIABILITY required limits are available, but give no indication that the coverage is actually suitable for the contract. To this end, an insurance certificate is at best evidence of coverage in force We now move from Contractual Liability at the date of issue but to fully understand how the coverage may respond, policy forms and look at the specific liability of a would need to be reviewed including terms and conditions, coverage enhancements/ transportation intermediary, while limitations, endorsements and covered/excluded vehicles. Examples of common certificate building on the Indemnity Provisions misses include: expected by shippers. Freight Brokers Liability is an emerging risk in the brokerage space that, although not •• A Symbol 7 reference, which designates “specifically described autos” and without technically new, has not been as well review of the vehicle schedule on the policy, evidences coverage will not apply to an addressed from an insurance perspective unscheduled vehicle. There are instances where a multiple unit operator will list one as it should be. vehicle on a policy and use a certificate as evidence for multiple units, i.e. “Multi Exposure.” Freight Broker Liability: Freight brokers are in some ways the first disruptors •• Hired and Non-Owned coverage may limit coverage to personal vehicles and is of the transportation industry. Freight generally not intended to address commercial vehicles. brokers traditionally worked in an unregulated space simply matching loads •• Policy definitions around ownership of short and long term leased vehicles, to carriers, actively avoiding liability temporary and permanent replacement will vary between underwriters and will and certainly not accepting contracts significantly alter coverage. or making any warranties around the fitness or suitability of the carriers they Second, there is very little control over the validity of the certificate itself. While it follows were engaging. In recent years, however, an industry standard format, such as the Acord format, there is little to prevent a certificate the broker’s role in the transportation from being fraudulently issued. Even if using a third party certificate management service, industry has grown. Smaller brokers the validation generally focusses on the confirmation of limits and renewal dates but not have developed into massive operations, how the coverage will respond to specific contractual situations. As such, certificates of through-putting billions of dollars in insurance, while a “standard” requirement for transacting business, are of limited value. In freight , becoming much larger fact, the majority of reputable carriers or brokers will have adequate insurance to address than many of the carriers that they their operational exposures even if a certificate is not requested, while a less reputable connect with their shipper customers. carrier or broker, who does not have adequate insurance, has the potential to produce a fraudulent certificate and the shipper is not going to realize this until after a loss has taken In addition, the majority of asset-based place. Although a controversial suggestion, as an industry perhaps we could effectively carriers also have a brokerage arm do away with traditional certificates of insurance and all of the frictional costs related to to ensure that they can provide their the collection and review of these documents, relying instead on the terms of the contract customers with a more complete national alone and the expectation that the contracting parties will perform and insure their and international service. performance under the contract as may be suitable. Of course as we move to blockchain transactions and smart contracts, by taking out more of the coverage variables in contract To battle thin margins, brokers have terms, the need for a paper based evidence of insurance will quickly disappear anyway. also become more willing to partner with shippers, delivering more Third and finally, from a contractual liability perspective, there is very little benefit to adding customized services, and of course a shipper as an additional insured under a cargo liability policy. The shipper should not accepting greater levels of contractual reasonably expect that the broker or carrier’s insurers will automatically pay a loss under liability (as discussed already). This the policy – just as requiring that the insurers acknowledge sight of a contract will not increase in size, along with the expansion ensure that all aspects of the contract will be covered by the . Certainly of role, has put the broker in a challenging the addition of a requirement that an underwriter have sight of a contract which includes position. When an underlying carrier is unlimited or open ended liability for loss/damage to goods cannot ensure that the involved in an incident, it is becoming underwriter will pay any and all losses experienced by the shipper. more likely that, if there was a broker involved in the transaction, they will be drawn into the claim.

5 INSIGHTS March 2018

Although negligent hiring and vicarious the presumed interpretation that the the carrier. It is not a contingent cover, liability are the common allegations, in action was based around the broker’s nor does it sit excess the carrier’s liability, many cases the action against the broker “use” of the carrier’s vehicle for the and it may subrogate back against the is unfounded or weak. However, even the movement of cargo. carrier, and so many astute brokers will basic defense of an unfounded claim may have an indemnity provision with the cost hundreds of thousands of dollars There are challenges with using a carriers they use to allow for this. and, more often, courts are making non-owned automobile provision to unfavorable decisions against the cover these exposures as the primary For coverages scheduled up into an broker to ensure the plaintiff is intention of the extension of coverage excess or umbrella program, we often adequately compensated. is to address the insured’s use of rental see the broker’s liability sitting on its own vehicles, examples of which include the as many traditional excess markets do In situations where brokers are using use of rental vehicles by sales people, or not want to sit over the broker’s liability independent contractors, the underlying the short term rental of a replacement exposure. This was highlighted two years carrier’s insurance coverage may be commercial vehicle that is being driven ago as Lexington exited the Broker’s limited. As the automobile liability market by the insured’s employee driver, or Liability market and Zurich and AIG has hardened, smaller carriers have the insured’s contracted driver. moved out of the buffer layer space. In reduced the limits they purchase, and However, in a properly structured essence, broker’s liability acts like a buffer brokers have accepted these reduced brokerage relationship, the driver of layer coverage where the actual carrier’s limits, which puts them at a greater risk of the vehicle is neither an employee nor a primary is not adequate to respond to the being drawn into a third party claim. contracted driver. claim being made against them.

From an insurance perspective, there has The application of coverage under a Broker’s Liability coverage should be been some misunderstanding around the non-owned automobile provision is also arranged across the entire operation. appropriate coverages a broker should problematic, as it would be intended Because coverage is not “cheap” there carry to address the risks related to being to sit excess of any primary coverage in is sometimes a perception that by drawn into a third party action against place for the actual driver – and, on this applying coverage to only a portion of the a carrier with whom they assisted in basis, the coverage is sometimes called operations the broker can reduce the cost coordinating freight. contingent auto, or contingent non- of coverage. Keep in mind, however, that owned auto. However, when the broker a claim can arise from any of the carriers As mentioned earlier under Contractual is not tied or related to the carrier, the that the broker may employ – not just the Liability, to address the automobile action being made against the broker is “small” carriers or from a niche part of the liability requirements imposed upon not contingent, nor is it excess. The last brokerage business. them under contract, they might arrange thing that the broker wants to rely on is to have an automobile liability policy the defense being put up by a carrier In addition, the coverage form for the on a vehicle they may not use. In the who only has $1 million in automobile Broker’s Liability needs to be broad. US, that automobile policy would likely liability insurance in a situation where Early forms and some current forms have a non-owned automobile coverage the plaintiff’s claim could be several place expectations or warranties on the extension. In Canada the non-owned million dollars. broker to ensure that the underlying automobile extension is often included carrier has a certain level of automobile under the General Liability policy. Freight Broker’s Liability (or Broker’s liability coverage, and if this warranty is Liability) coverage is a primary insurance breached, may not respond on behalf of For a number of years, and likely in a coverage intended to address situations the broker. This effectively defeats the number of cases, brokers may have where the broker is drawn into an action purpose of the coverage and, as such, called upon the non-owned automobile as a result of an incident involving a forms that require a certain level of due coverage under either an Auto or GL carrier that handled freight brokered diligence in the carrier selection process policy to respond to the defense of by the insured. As a primary cover it but do not warrant there be a minimum actions into which they are drawn – with responds on behalf of the broker and it level of coverage with the carrier may be specifically does not provide coverage for deemed more attractive.

6 INSIGHTS March 2018

Once a broker understands their exposure and the coverage provided by the broker’s CONCLUSION liability form, they are faced with the difficult question of how much limit should be purchased. Since the exposure should primarily be defense, a high limit may not be As we see change taking place at an ever necessary. At the same time, however, for larger brokers, having higher limits may be increasing pace in both the way goods are necessary to address the decisions they might face as a deep pocket. moved and the expectations being placed on the parties involved with the movement of goods, the insurance industry is going CHANGING TECHNOLOGY AND THE IMPACT ON to be challenged to keep up. The coverage AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE structures of the past may not be suitable for the contractual and operational Looking forward at the potential changes that the insurance industry is likely to face over exposures of the future. the next five to 15 years, technology is clearly going to have a massive impact on the risk profile of transportation industry and automobile insurance. As noted at the start of this For the insurance industry to provide paper, autonomous vehicles are going to change liability claims; simply put, if vehicles a valued service to the transportation don’t crash, a huge part of the insurance industry will become unnecessary. In the US, industry, we will see changes in how automobile insurance makes up approximately 40% of the total market premium. From a insurance coverage responds to the dollar perspective, it is roughly $247 billion dollars out of a total market premium of $611 expectation of shippers, who are not billion, with the next largest individual coverage line being homeowners insurance at $91 likely to go back to accepting “traditional” billion* (NAIC 2016 Key Facts and Market Trends). If vehicles are 99.9% less likely to be limitations. We will need coverage to involved in an accident, the reduction in claims will lead to a massive reduction in premium. address the changing way goods are With the anticipated reduction in accident frequency and a substantive reduction in loss moved, recognizing that the brokerage costs, the insurance industry will be facing even greater challenges around where to deploy of services to a network of independent capital, and will be forced to significantly reduce the cost structure that is currently in place contractors, similar to the ridesharing supporting the industry – including underwriting, administration, claims management, and model of creating a network of of course certificate issuance. There is, of course, the short term possibility that, during independent drivers, is going to continue the transition to autonomous vehicles, there may be an increase in loss severity, including to grow until it is disrupted by the wider punitive jury awards against the manufacturers of autonomous vehicle technology, as well acceptance of autonomous vehicles. We as challenges around how autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles will interact and be will also need to see changes in the way insured – but this can only last for a short period before fully-autonomous vehicles become insurance interacts with new technologies, legislated in the best interest of society. including concepts around continually adjusting coverage based on AI, and In addition, as artificial intelligence develops in the insurance space, the pricing of risk improved contract certainty through smart will become more efficient, and more accurate, reducing the need for underwriters and contracts and blockchain. ensuring there is less variance between insurance markets. With less pricing variances, the selection process of coverage will be less labor intensive, reducing the requirement for a Fortunately, for the near term at least, broker to assist with the insurance transaction. Some estimates suggest that the insurance there will continue to be risk in the industry will be able to shed approximately 60% of current staffing as the business of rating transportation of goods. However, as and delivering insurance becomes more commoditized and automated. expectations shift regarding how the responsibility for those risks are On the claims front, which is also currently labor intensive, blockchain will assist in managed, either through contract, creating claims settlement efficiency, with significantly reduced debates with respect to decisions, or changing technology, validation of the parties to be paid, along with less confusion around expectations under the insurance industry is going to be purchase agreements, including a more specific understanding of liabilities of the parties challenged to keep up. under contract.

In addition, smart contracts will ensure clarity of liability, forcing issues such as the financial obligations of a carrier in the event of a loss to be pre-defined. These more specific pre-defined obligations will be tied under contract into the insurance coverage of the parties involved in the transaction, eliminating questions around whether or not there is the correct coverage in place, and thankfully ending the need for certificates of insurance.

7 INSIGHTS March 2018

For further information, please contact ABOUT MARSH your local Marsh office or visit our website at marsh.com. A global leader in insurance broking and innovative risk management solutions, Marsh’s 30,000 colleagues advise individual and commercial clients of all sizes in over 130 countries. MATTHEW YESHIN Marsh is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (NYSE: MMC), the Managing Director leading global professional services firm in the areas of risk, strategy and people. With National Practice Leader – Marine, annual revenue over US$13 billion and more than 60,000 colleagues worldwide, MMC helps Logistics and Transportation (Canada) clients navigate an increasingly dynamic and complex environment through four market- +1 416 349 4754 leading firms. In addition to Marsh, MMC is the parent company of Guy Carpenter, which [email protected] develops advanced risk, and capital strategies that help clients grow profitably and pursue emerging opportunities; Mercer, which delivers advice and technology-driven SHAUN CARR solutions that help organizations meet the health, wealth and career needs of a changing Senior Vice President workforce; and Oliver Wyman, a critical strategic, economic and brand advisor to private National Sales Leader – sector and governmental clients. Follow Marsh on Twitter @MarshGlobal; LinkedIn; Marsh Transportation (US) Facebook; and YouTube, or subscribe to BRINK. +1 404 995 2862 [email protected]

Marsh is one of the Marsh & McLennan Companies, together with Guy Carpenter, Mercer, and Oliver Wyman. This document and any recommendations, analysis, or advice provided by Marsh (collectively, the “Marsh Analysis”) are not intended to be taken as advice regarding any individual situation and should not be relied upon as such. This document contains proprietary, confidential information of Marsh and may not be shared with any third party, including other insurance producers, without Marsh’s prior written consent. Any statements concerning actuarial, tax, accounting, or legal matters are based solely on our experience as insurance brokers and risk consultants and are not to be relied upon as actuarial, accounting, tax, or legal advice, for which you should consult your own professional advisors. Any modelling, analytics, or projections are subject to inherent uncertainty, and the Marsh Analysis could be materially affected if any underlying assumptions, conditions, information, or factors are inaccurate or incomplete or should change. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable, but we make no representation or warranty as to its accuracy. Except as may be set forth in an agreement between you and Marsh, Marsh shall have no obligation to update the Marsh Analysis and shall have no liability to you or any other party with regard to the Marsh Analysis or to any services provided by a third party to you or Marsh. Marsh makes no representation or warranty concerning the application of policy wordings or the financial condition or solvency of insurers or re-insurers. Marsh makes no assurances regarding the availability, cost, or terms of insurance coverage. Copyright © 2018 Marsh Canada Limited and its licensors. All rights reserved. www.marsh.ca | www.marsh.com 221761615 (C031718JB): 2018/03/17

8